Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] issues 92, 94, 95 and text for sending BAs with R H

From: "Hesham Soliman (EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 21:09:32 +0200

=> Should we put the same condition on the MN too?
I'm trying to get my head around a multi-sited MN
(on the same interface) and how it chooses the right 
site-local CoA. It seems difficult.

Also the other tricky part is how does a MN know if
it's in a home site. It might boot in a site that
has both global and site-local addresses but is not
the home site, so it shouldn't send a BU to its HA
for a site-local CoA. 

am I missing something? 

Hesham

---

From: "Hesham Soliman (EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 21:14:58 +0200

Sorry if I'm replying to something that was already
addressed, I seem to be getting mails late and out
of order.

  > Erik Nordmark wrote:
  > 
  > > Given that my example was an isolated site (not connected
  > > to the Internet), the MN can't move outside the
  > > site and expect anything.
  > 
  > Yes. But since the our specifications can't really prevent
  > from this happening in the real world some day, what I was
  > trying to do was to figure out if it would lead to a catastrophy
  > or not. It seems that going outside the original site would
  > not cause any major problems. But it also seems that we may
  > have to be a bit careful with the care-of address selection
  > if multiple kinds of addresses are available. Perhaps it is
  > sufficient to add the following things to the specification:
  > 
  > - Require that home agents and mobile nodes that use site-local
  >    addresses always stay completely within that site.

=> Yes. 

  > - Pick a global care-of address if available.

=> Sure. But the issue is that even if a global
address is not available and Site-local only is
available, the MN might not be in the home site.
But I guess in that case the BU will never make 
it to the HA. So this should be ok.

Hesham